Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 091

Monday, September 6 2004

• Re: halcha vs agada
• Re: Non-literal explanations of Torah
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: halcha vs agada
• Re: halcha vs agada
• Re: halcha vs agada
• Re; Rosh Hashana: eating/looking at the simanim
• re:seeing or eating Simanim
• RE: The Age of the Universe
• RE: The Age of the Universe (historical Gan Eden/Adam HaRishon)
• RE: Age of the Universe (Rav Dessler zt"l)
• Re: Age of the Universe (Rav Dessler zt"l)
• Re: Age of the Universe (Rav Dessler zt"l)

On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:42:02AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: As as been pointed out in previous reiterations, hashkofa issues do in 
: fact involve halacha...

Agreed. RGS's article makes that point quite well.

:                     . Even your side issue of eilu v'eilu - Rashi and 
: Tosfos (Kesubos 57a) mention that in contrast to sevora - historical 
: facts are not eilu v'eilu because they are either right or wrong...

Exactly my point! Eilu va'eilu shows that the process of pesaq is not
the identification of truth. If it were, then the side against the
final pesaq couldn't be "eilu va'ilu".

Far from being a side issue, ev"e is a statement that divorces pesaq
(halakhah kedivrei BH) from truth (divrei E-lokim chaim).

...
: Your assertion that the posek defines what is right not what is true is 
: a bit puzzling. A posek takes facts such a dispute in money and 
: determines who is the owner, did the person transgress Shabbos etc. He 
: also determines and decides between halachic alternatives....

The first is an issue of birur. 

You have not shown that the term pesaq applies to anything but deciding
between halchic alternatives. And, given the mechanics in the case
of halakhic alternatives, it seems impossible to apply the same
concept to other domains.

...
: R' Chananel states:" The *halacha* is not like Mar Ukva... nor is it 
: like R' Yossi..."

Lema'aseh implications WRT hilchos st"am.

...
: This seems to be a classical halachic form with a refutation of the
: original assertion and an apparent psak that suffering and death result
: without sin. [Of interest is that the majority of rishonim assert [pasken]
: that in fact suffering and death are always a result of sin. See Tosfos
: (Shabbos 55b).

Pesaq? Where do you see the term?

I'm objecting to your parenthetic that translates "assert" as "pasqen".
With all that it implies about gadol mimenu bikhochmah uvminyan, etc...
that the rules of pesaq would require.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

At 04:46 PM 9/4/2004, [RNS] wrote:
>Furthermore, I don't know why you are pointing out that RSG took Gan Eden
>literally. Nobody has claimed otherwise. All I pointed out in my earlier
>posting was that RSG does, in certain cases, permit allegorization,
>contrary to your blanket statement that it is never acceptable. RSG
>only rejects allegorizing techiyas hameisim because it does not fall
>into one of his permitted categories - something that is contradicted
>by the senses, reason, a contradictory passuk, or mesorah. However RSG
>permits allegorization when done for these reasons.

He does not permit taking narratives in the Torah as meshalim at all. I 
thought my quotation made that clear. I went to RSG because you had earlier 
cited RSG as supporting your position. Since I do not have access at the 
moment to the other sources you cited, I assumed I should check sources you 
cite that are at my disposal, and they do not corroborate your position.

>So I would like to put forth my question once again:

>1.When Ralbag (new addition), Abarbanel, Efodi and Rav Kappach explain
>Rambam's view to be that the events of Gan Eden are allegorical (which
>you felt to be the wrong interpretation of Rambam), was Rambam accordingly
>"dismissing it as the equivalent of Aesop's fables"?

See above. The Rambam himself, as I noted earlier, says nothing of
the sort that you assert those three sources to state in explanation
of his position. If they so assert, they are clearly in error. I have
no qualms stating this about the Efodi and Rav Kappach who, kevodam
be'mekomam munach, are not exactly great pillars of strength upon which
you can base your position. I feel bad about the Abarbanel, but I will
assume this is a misunderstanding of his position. In any event, again,
kevodo be'mekomo munach, but even were he to say what you assert, yesh
l'hashiv, vek"m. Slipping in a Ralbag (no source nor quotation) is very
unhelpful, to say the least. The short answer, in any event, is Yes.

>I would also like to ask a second question. RYGB wrote:
>>To the best of my knowledge, you will find no authoritative source
>> ... who goes beyond these four approaches and says that a metzius or
>> ma'aseh described in a pasuk did not take place or does not occur on *any*
>> of these three levels, but is merely some elaborate metaphor.

>My question on this is as follows:

>2. Aside from the Rambam on Gan Eden, when Rambam writes in Moreh Nevuchim
>3:22 that "Iyov is a mashal to explain people's opinions concerning
>providence; the explanation and statement of some of our Sages is known,
>that Iyov never existed... Those who think that he did exist are not able
>to ascertain his era and location... This supports the opinion that he
>did not exist..." was Rambam "dismissing it as the equivalent of Aesop's
>fables"? Is this not an authoritative source that a ma'aseh described in
>a pasuk is "merely some elaborate metaphor"? Or are you distinguishing
>between Chumash and Nach, with the latter able to be dismissed as fable?

>Please clearly state "yes" or "no" to these questions.

Chazal cite an opinion that Iyov is the equivalent of Aesop's Fables. 
Doubtless there was a mesorah to that effect. There is no problem with the 
Rambam adopting that mesorah. Again, the short answer is Yes - just as did 
Chazal.

YGB

At 06:01 PM 9/5/2004, [Micha] wrote:
>:>"God created the Heavens and the Earth" is a Spiritual Truth (i.e. God
>:>was personally involved in creation) without the need for the narrative
>:>to be an exact record of the physical process.

>: If it is described as a physical process it is not spiritual.

>Why? Is not the physical simply a shadow ne'etzal from the spiritual?

You are correct. I should have said "also physical."

YGB 

From: Daniel Eidensohn
>>There are two basic processes 1) commentary and attempt to understand
>>a particular view or sugya 2) specification that there is one correct
>>way of understanding and that the others are wrong.

>>In sum: psak is any strong statement that position "A" is correct and
>>the alternatives are wrong. However there is an additional condition to
>>be considered psak -- there has to be some consequence of choosing one
>>or the other alternative.

S Goldstein wrote:
>how do you [RDE] understand the Rambam's caveat in Peirush haMishna not
>to decide certain issues?

If there are not actual meaningful consequences of deciding between views
[psak] we don't. It is obvious that there were many hashkofa issues
that the Rambam did in fact pasken and included in his halachic work --
Mishna Torah. Are we disagreeing about this also or only what the Rambam
meant about not deciding certain issues?

i think the Meiri did #1 of your 2 choices.
>He chose to explain a sugya (or maybe several together) as agreeing with
>the premise ain mazal lyisroel. The Meiri seems to believe that this is
>the real conclusion of Shas itself. Therefore, the Meiri has no safek
>to pasken. Due to the parshanut of the Meiri, the Shas itself does not
>really have 2 opinions on this issue. I think that in this case I agree
>with RMS that this should NOT be called a psak.

The Meiri acknowledges that there is a view in the gemora Shabbos 156a 
that Jews are influenced by Mazal. He doesn't analyze the gemora to show 
that this view is wrong [as we find in Shabbos 55a concerning sin and 
suffering] but simply argues from a metarule that Jews must have free 
will and that is why he rejects this view. Rambam does the same thing in 
rejecting the validity of any evidence against free will -- which he 
acknowledges does apparently exist in various verses. Similarly Meiri 
acknowledges that the gemora that "lifespan, children, and livelihood 
are determined by mazal not merit -- means what it says. He simply says 
that view is wrong. The view that mazal is determinant is expressed all 
through Shas. He nowhere demonstrates where and how Shas rejects this 
view -- but he says instead that he rejects this view. Thus he is not 
understanding Shas but has a preexisting view that prevents him from 
excepting certain views found in Shas. Anyone taking this approach to a 
sugya in gemora can not be said to trying to understand what the gemora 
is saying -- he knew before he opened the gemora.

Daniel Eidensohn

Micha Berger wrote:
>:                     . Even your side issue of eilu v'eilu - Rashi and 
>: Tosfos (Kesubos 57a) mention that in contrast to sevora - historical 
>: facts are not eilu v'eilu because they are either right or wrong...

>Exactly my point! Eilu va'eilu shows that the process of pesaq is not
>the identification of truth. If it were, then the side against the
>final pesaq couldn't be "eilu va'ilu".

>Far from being a side issue, ev"e is a statement that divorces pesaq
>(halakhah kedivrei BH) from truth (divrei E-lokim chaim).

Could you try that one again. Considering that there are views that eilu
v'eilu are both true and others that only one is true or that they are
both partially true - I fail to understand your point. [Just came across
a Chida that states that the rejected view is false but it is called
eilu v'eilu since the false enables us to see the light of truth which
is what the psak. ] Thus pesak can be viewed as a process of attempting
to establish truth or it can be viewed as procedure for answering a
question. Both of these alternatives can apply equally to hashkofa or
issur v'heter etc. The majority of discussions of eilu v'eilu are in fact
bothered by the contradictions between psak and eilu v'eilu since psak
has to do with truth so how can multiple conflicting views all be true?

Zivchei Tzedek(Yoreh Deah #26): Question: How could the conflicting
opinions of our sages - where one asserts that something is prohibited
and another claims that it is permitted - all be given to Moshe on Mt.
Sinai? Answer: The answer to this question is extreme deep and we are
not able to properly answer it. Even the rishonim did not have a full
response to it. For example the Ritva noted that the French Rabbis
raised the question in understanding Eiruvin (13b) as to how both
Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel could be correct. ... They answered that
Moshe was shown 49 different aspects of permissibility and 49 aspects
of prohibition for every halachic issue and that it was given to the
decision of the sages in each generation what the halacha would be. The
Ritva commented that this explanation is correct according to drash
but that there was a kabbalistic explanation for it. We see this also
in Chagiga (3b) where it is noted that the sages had many conflicting
views so how could a person learn Torah. The gemora answers that all
these conflicting views were in fact all given by G-d. This gemora is
clearly in agreement with the French Rabbis. A similar answer is given
by Rabbeinu Chananel and the Shaloh. In contrast the Chida notes that
the opposing position is not true but since it serves to illuminate
the view that is true is can be called eilu v'eilu. Rashi (Kesubos 57a)
says that even though both positions are not true answers to the present
question but if the incorrect answer is correct in a different situation
then both views are called eilu v'eilu.... The achronim have additional
explanations. Nevertheless these answers don't seem to make sense to our
limited minds. Even concerning the view of the French Rabbis quoted by
the Ritva, the Shaloh says that this matter is very far beyond the grasp
of man's intellect... Even the Ritva indicated that the genuine answer is
from the mysteries of Kabbala. So the bottom line is that this question
is beyond our ability to understand. We see the many answers that were
given to give a little comfort - especially to the masses. Thus they
will have to suffice because the real answer is found in Kabbala which
is not appropriate for either of us.

>You have not shown that the term pesaq applies to anything but deciding
>between halchic alternatives. And, given the mechanics in the case
>of halakhic alternatives, it seems impossible to apply the same
>concept to other domains.

please elaborate

>I'm objecting to your parenthetic that translates "assert" as "pasqen".
>With all that it implies about gadol mimenu bikhochmah uvminyan, etc...
>that the rules of pesaq would require.

I don't understand your point. What does it imply about etc? If rov
poskim today say that hashgocha protis cannot apply to a leaf falling
off a tree and that to assert such is wrong - why isn't that psak? When
the Chasam Sofer says that the view that of Hillel that Moshiach isn't
coming is wrong - he says it is now heresy to have such a belief because
the majority has established that it is wrong. Why isn't that psak? If
the majority of poskim (or even your local rav) hold today that teaching
women Torah is not tiflis - why isn't that psak?

Daniel Eidensohn

On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 03:41:32AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Could you try that one again. Considering that there are views that eilu
: v'eilu are both true and others that only one is true or that they are
: both partially true - I fail to understand your point. [Just came across
: a Chida that states that the rejected view is false but it is called
: eilu v'eilu since the false enables us to see the light of truth which
: is what the psak. ] Thus pesak can be viewed as a process of attempting
: to establish truth or it can be viewed as procedure for answering a
: question. Both of these alternatives can apply equally to hashkofa or
: issur v'heter etc....

First, I didn't consider the non-pluralist position. As I wrote, I was
posting from the perspective of my own position -- not giving a survey.

While hashkafah has issues of truth vs falsehood, there are no other
dimensions to the question. Unlike halakhah, which also can be resolved
on the level of law vs non-law.

: bothered by the contradictions between psak and eilu v'eilu since psak
: has to do with truth so how can multiple conflicting views all be true?

...
:> I'm objecting to your parenthetic that translates "assert" as "pasqen".
:> With all that it implies about gadol mimenu bikhochmah uvminyan, etc...
:> that the rules of pesaq would require.

: I don't understand your point. What does it imply about etc? If rov
: poskim today say that hashgocha protis cannot apply to a leaf falling
: off a tree and that to assert such is wrong - why isn't that psak? ...

Because by the rules of pesaq, they couldn't go with a da'as yachid
in the rishonim. It is not, in any technical sense, a pesaq.

Nor was the Me'iri's statement about mazal. He simply tells you which
side of a machloqes amora'im he takes. He doesn't follow any of the
rules of pesaq that we use for halakhah.

: the Chasam Sofer says that the view that of Hillel that Moshiach isn't
: coming is wrong - he says it is now heresy to have such a belief because
: the majority has established that it is wrong. Why isn't that psak? ...

That is pesaq. You should really read RGS's paper. The 12th ikkar emunah
is part of how we pasqen who is an apiqoreis. The question isn't one
of fact -- will Mashiach come, but one of din -- may someone believe
he won't.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I see you missed my post on AVODAH 3-4 years ago on the original Minhag
Ashkenaz. I had to check something in the TUR Orach Chayim after Musaf
on RH and noticed that the Bach there mentioned that the original minhag
was to dip a cow's head (!) in honey.

KT
Josh

The source for seeing is the Gemara in Horiyot, 12,a
"Abbai says, 'Now that we have stated that signs have an effect,
therefore a person should SEE at the beinging of the year Kera, Ruba,
Karit, V'Salki, V'Tamri." However, the Gemara in Keritut, 6,a quotes the
same, but instead of SEE has EAT. But the Aurkh, s.v. Kera has SEE as
does R. Hai Goan, vol. 3 no. 126, see also Otzar Ha-Geonim, Rosh Ha-Sanah
no. 92. For further discussion of this issue, see Pardes Eliezer, Rosh
Ha-Shana, Brooklyn, NY 2000 p. 266-67; also see Kaf ha-Chaim who address
your very point in siman 583 "whomever is unable to eat the simanim
... it is sufficent that they just look at it."

=====
Dan Rabinowitz
rwdnick@yahoo.com

So as not to be accused of misunderstandings, can Rabbi Nossen Slifkin
please confirm his views on the historicity of Gan Eden.

(1) According to RNS, the scientific evidence is so compelling that the
first man was not Adam HaRishon (he never existed) but rather a hominid
creature (which existed 30,000 years ago or more) which itself evolved
from earlier creatures (e.g an amoeba). A neshama was placed in this
ancient hominid and that was the first man. (Hominids, in fact, go back
millions of years according to current scientific thinking).

(2) RNS also states that the whole account of Gan Eden about 5764 years
ago is a non-historical allegory (mashal). There was no historical Adam
HaRishon created directly from the earth on yom ha-shisi. Adam HaRishon
was never expelled from Gan Eden (there was no historical Gan), and thus
he never fathered Kayin, Hevel and Seth etc.

Rabbi Nossen Slifkin wrote
> I did indeed check the archives again, and found debate 
> concerning Rambam's position on Gan Eden. Abarbanel, Efodi 
> and R' Yosef Kappach interpreted Rambam as understanding it 
> allegorically, while you disagreed. Considering the stature 
> of your interlocutors, I wouldn't characterize the proposed 
> source in Rambam as "debatable, to say the least."

> Furthermore, this previous debate on Avodah was only 
> regarding Gan Eden, concerning which there is some ambiguity 
> in Rambam's position. However, with regard to RYGB's blanket 
> statement that allegorization is unnacceptable, we have a 
> very clear statement by Rambam to the contrary:

> "The account of creation given in Scripture is not, as is 
> generally believed, intended to be literal in all its parts." 
> (Guide For The Perplexed, 2:29)

On Gan Eden and Adam HaRishon, Rambam clearly states that it is
historical, as I mentioned in an earlier post. The Rambam considers
the historicity of Gan Eden as part of the "yesod Hatorah" of "chidush
haolam".

If (2) is indeed RNS's position, it is not only untenable, but may
be halachicly problematic according to Teshuvos HaRashba (on the
ban on chochma chitzonis until 35 years of age, and inappropriate
allegorizing). See below for sources on the Rambam.

Rabbi Nossen Slifkin wrote:
> Whoah, this [Gan Eden/AdamHarishon is non-historical] 
> is going much further than anything I ever wrote! 
> Although it is a scenario that is addressed and rated as 
> acceptable in Rav Kook's writings, as discussed previously on 
> Avodah. I have a question for you, by the way:
> Where exactly is Gan Eden, and the cherubs with the flaming 
> twirling swords?

The Sefer Habahir asked this question (I:31):

Rabbi Amorai asked: where is Gan Eden?
He replied: It is on earth.

The Ramban (Toras Hadam, p295ff) states that even Rebbe Eliezer HaGadol
(who stated that Samael was riding on the nachash) "understood [the Gan]
in the literal sense as a garden".

Ramban states that "all the homilies [of Chazal] clearly speak of Gan
Eden as being an actual garden ...".

The Ramban points out that this was also the opinion of the Rambam in
Perek Chelek and elsewhere. In Perek Chelek the Rambam writes that "Gan
Eden is a fertile place in the sphere of the earth ... G-d will reveal
it to man in the future ...".

In the MN (III:50) the Rambam writes: "It is one of the fundamental
principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo,
and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created. As
the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses was not more than about two
thousand five hundred years, people would have doubted the truth of
that statement if no other information had been added, seeing that the
human race was spread over all parts of the earth in different families
and with different languages". Rabbenu Bechaya (Gen ch. 10) and the
Ramban use this Rambam to indicate how Yaakov heard the mesora of chidush
haolam from Avraham, who heard it from Noach, who heard it from Lemech,
who heard it from Adam HaRishon.

The Ramchal (Daas Tevunos) has a detailed and excellent description of
the refined state of Adam HaRishon/Gan Eden, that is consistent with
Rav Dessler's description.

As Rabbi Berachiah in the Bahir states (I:160): Each day we speak of Olam
Haba. Do we understand what we are saying? In Aramaic Olam Haba means
"the world that already came" ...

There may be some fascinating insights to be gained here. Olam Haba
was the original creation, which changed into a refined version of Olam
Hazeh that included Gan Eden. After the chet, that refinement was lost,
and the result is our gross world. Which, lo and behold, will one day
in acharis hayamim, change back into the spiritual refinement of Olam
Haba. That is our task as Jews, to mend the world.

Some of the sources in the Rambam (MN Friedlander translation, but see R.
Kappach for interesting details) may be of interest.

II:30
The following point now claims our attention. The account of the six
days of creation contains, in reference to the creation of man, the
statement :" Male and female created he them" (i. 27), and concludes with
the words:" Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the
host of them" (ii. 1), and yet the portion which follows describes the
creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge,
the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith, and all
this as having taken place after Adam had been placed in the Garden of
Eden. All our Sages agree that this took place on the sixth day, and
that nothing new was created after the close of the six days. None of the
things mentioned above is therefore impossible, because the laws of Nature
were then not yet permanently fixed. There are, however, some utterances
of our Sages on this subject [which apparently imply a different view]. I
will gather them from their different sources and place them before you,
and I will refer also to certain things by mere hints, just as has been
done by the Sages. I You must know that their words, which I am about
to quote, are most perfect, most accurate, and clear to those for whom
they were said. I will therefore not add long explanations, lest I make
their statements plain, and I might thus become" a revealer of secrets,"
but I will give them in a certain order, accompanied with a few remarks,
which will suffice for readers like you.

III:50
Every narrative in the Law serves a certain purpose in connexion with
religious teaching. It either helps to establish a principle of faith,
or to regulate our actions, and to prevent wrong and injustice among men;
and I will show this in each case.

It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has
been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being,
Adam, was created. As the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses was not
more than about two thousand five hundred years, people would have doubted
the truth of that statement if no other information had been added,
seeing that the human race was spread over all parts of the earth in
different families and with different languages, very unlike the one to
the other. In order to remove this doubt the Law gives the genealogy of
the nations (Gen. v. and x.), and the manner how they branched off from
a common root. It names those of them who were well known, and tells
who their fathers were, how long and where they lived. It describes
also the cause that led to the dispersion of men over all parts of the
earth, and to the formation of their different languages, after they had
lived for a long time in one place, and spoken one language (ibid. xi.),
as would be natural for descendants of one person. The accounts of the
flood (ibid. vi.-viii.) and of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
(ibid. xix.), serve as an illustration of the doctrine that" Verily
there is a reward for the righteous; verily He is a God that judgeth in
the earth" (Ps. lviii. 12).

[Email #2. -mi]

Rabbi Nossen Slifkin wrote
> Unfortunately it seems that R' Jonathan Ostroff has still 
> misunderstood me:  ...

RNS has omitted so far to deal with the two objections posted earlier and
noted below.

> In the paragraph I cited, Rav Dessler is not addressing the 
> content of the six days, but rather the nature of the days 
> themselves, and it is with regard to this (and only with 
> regard to this) that I am quoting him. Of course he explains 
> the events that transpired on those days, at least regarding 
> Gan Eden, as having actually happened. But I am only quoting 
> him regarding the nature of the word "day" itself, with which 
> Rav Dessler is quite clear that they are only described as 
> "periods of time"
> to enable a simple understanding, but that this is not their 
> true nature. ...
> but I can certainly use Rav Dessler's explanation of 
> the meaning of the word "yom" even if I am not using his 
> explanation regarding the nature of Adam - since the two are 
> not neccessarily linked in any way!

Here, very briefly (see earlier posts for the details), are two objections
that RNS has so far omitted to deal with.

Objection 1: According to RNS, Rav Dessler describes any "yom" in the
7 days of Maaseh Beraishis as non-historical allegory. If there was no
"yom" historically, then there also was no "yom" ha-shishi, in which case
there could not have been a historical creation of Adam HaRishon in Gan
Eden on "yom" ha-shisi. But Rav Dessler does describe a historical Adam
HaRishon created directly from the earth in Gan Eden on "yom" ha-shishi.

Thus RNS is incorrect to attribute a non-historical and fully allegorical
"yom" to Rav Dessler.

Objection 2: In my earlier post, I indicated that Rav Dessler discusses
"yom" and Adam HaRishon in the same shiur, intertwining his notions of
"yom"/zman/bechira and the chet of Adam Harishon in Gan Eden on "yom"
ha-shisi. The link between the two is obvious once you analyze the
whole shiur.

Finally, even if we did a "copy and paste", i.e. we decouple Rav Dessler's
explanation of "yom" from its legitimate and richly-informative context,
Rav Dessler still does not explicitly state what RNS attributes to him,
especially since it results in an unlikely and unusual understanding of
the Ramban. Far more likely is the interpretation given by RYGB and myself
(see earlier posts).

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

Following my protest that R' Jonathan Ostroff is going much further
in his presentation of my position than anything I ever wrote, and
that I am explicitly not denying the historicity of Adam HaRishon, he
has done the same thing again. R' Ostroff asked me to confirm my views
on the historicity of Gan Eden. But instead of waiting for an answer,
he then continues to attribute a number of statements to me, regarding
both Adam HaRishon and Gan Eden, that I never made!

R' Ostroff wrote:
>(1) According to RNS, the scientific evidence is so compelling that the 
>first man was not Adam HaRishon (he never existed) but rather a hominid 
>creature (which existed 30,000 years ago or more) which itself evolved 
>from earlier creatures (e.g an amoeba). A neshama was placed in this 
>ancient hominid and that was the first man. (Hominids, in fact, go back 
>millions of years according to current scientific thinking).

?????!!!!!!!!!!
Where did I write that Adam HaRishon never existed?
Where did I write that the first man lived 30,000 years ago or more?

R' Ostroff continues:
>(2) RNS also states that the whole account of Gan Eden about 5764 years 
>ago is a non-historical allegory (mashal).

Where did I write this?
All I wrote was that, in response to RYGB's claim that no part of
Bereishis can be allegorical, there are those who explained otherwise,
namely that according to various authorities, Rambam held Gan Eden to
be allegorical. I did not refer to the "whole account" of Gan Eden, just
to whatever aspect of it Rambam is explained to be allegorizing. (My own
current position is that I do not know with any certainty what the correct
pshat is; I am merely presenting Rambam as being within the acceptable
realm of views, and showing that the conventional understanding of Gan
Eden is not without its difficulties.)

I will only continue my discussion with R' Ostroff if he can either (a)
cite my postings where I wrote what he asserted to be my position, or (b)
retract these assertions. In any case, I believe that appropriate Avodah
protocol should be to cite people's postings and let their words speak
for themselves, rather than presenting one's own version of someone's
position.

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin

R' Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
>Here, very briefly (see earlier posts for the details), are two objections
>that RNS has so far omitted to deal with.
>Objection 1: According  to RNS, Rav Dessler describes any "yom" in the 7
>days of Maaseh Beraishis as non-historical allegory. If there was no "yom"
>historically, then there also was no "yom" ha-shishi, in which case there
>could not have been a historical creation of Adam HaRishon in Gan Eden on
>"yom" ha-shisi. But Rav Dessler does describe a historical Adam HaRishon
>created directly from the earth in Gan Eden on "yom" ha-shishi.
>Thus RNS is incorrect to attribute a non-historical and fully allegorical
>"yom" to Rav Dessler.

When Rav Dessler explains "yom" as a spiritual emanation, this does not
mean that the event described on that day did not happen. After all,
the world was indeed created! Rather, he is talking about the nature
of "yom" itself, not the things that take place on it. I.e. he is only
talking about the meaning of the word "yom", not about the things that
happened on each "yom."

>Objection 2: In my earlier post, I indicated that Rav Dessler discusses
>"yom" and Adam HaRishon in the same shiur, intertwining his notions of
>"yom"/zman/bechira and the chet of Adam Harishon in Gan Eden on "yom"
>ha-shisi. The link between the two is obvious once you analyze the
>whole shiur.

See above. I don't see how this changes anything.

>Finally, even if we did a "copy and paste", i.e. we decouple Rav
>Dessler's explanation of "yom" from its legitimate and richly-informative
>context, Rav Dessler still does not explicitly state what RNS
>attributes to him, especially since it results in an unlikely and unusual
>understanding of the Ramban. Far more likely is the interpretation given
>by RYGB and myself (see earlier posts).

Well, again, I invite everyone to read Rav Dessler's words and draw
their own conclusions, and also to read the haskamah of Rav Aryeh
Carmell, editor of MME, to my book, in which my citation of MME was a
major component.

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin

On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 05:14:29AM +0300, Zoo Torah wrote:
: When Rav Dessler explains "yom" as a spiritual emanation, this does not
: mean that the event described on that day did not happen...

REED writes that time was an inherently different thing. And that in
addition to this yom of incomprehensible nature, the six days are also
six sephiros. He holds that Bereishis 1 is literal history, but we can't
understand it on that level.

Because he invokes incomprehensibility, the REED's shitah is incompatible
with accepting a teva explanation of ma'aseh bereishis.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 22:20 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 05:14:29AM +0300, Zoo Torah wrote:
> : When Rav Dessler explains "yom" as a spiritual emanation, this does not
> : mean that the event described on that day did not happen...

> REED writes that time was an inherently different thing. And that in
> addition to this yom of incomprehensible nature, the six days are also
> six sephiros. He holds that Bereishis 1 is literal history, but we can't
> understand it on that level.

> Because he invokes incomprehensibility, the REED's shitah is incompatible
> with accepting a teva explanation of ma'aseh bereishis.

really? Just because something is "incomprehensible", does it mean we
cant try to understand it on some level? For instance, just because
hashem is infinite and incomprehensible doesn't stop us from trying to
understand hashem. We try to understand and emulate the midot we see in
hashem. Rachanim and Din for instance.

Why can't one also that there is a teva aspect to ma'aseh bereishis.
We won't ever understand it all, but we can try to understand as much
of it (the teva aspect) as we can.

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]